Dear Sparteye, Thank you for that explanation. It's a concept many reporters and editors never grasp. Makes me grind my teeth in frustration when the terms are used interchangeably. The general public may be forgiven but Editors should know better!wow

Earlier today, the discussion focused briefly on creative writing, negating negatives, and apposite opposites. Tennyson's creative writing instructors (if ever he was so blessed) would probably have taught him of rhetorical figures w/ long, forgettable Greek names (including one or more - I once knew some of these- for "apposite opposites" tsuwm?) Whatever its origin, he created a string of apposite opposites that are forever etched in my mind, to wit: speaking, in Idylls of the King, of Lancelot, "his honor rooted in dishonor stood,""And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true." Rather creative, that. ....

Next point, on "th' Excluded Middle",, later in the Post, concur completely w/ Justice Spartye (well, except for the bit about Spartans going somewhere - "Timeo Danaae, dona ferentis" I fear Greeks bearing basketballs) but she certainly knows her law. The "Not Guilty" = "Innocent" misconception wants correcting. For a start, print her post on the front page of the NY Times (The MICHIGAN Law Review has more prestige, but it doesn't have the circulation). Nicely done - again - Sparteye.

I dnn't ever remember, even from the labyrinthine American court system, a verdict of "innocent" being handed down. Assuming that I'm right, does this mean that the courts, 10 times out of 10, fail to find that the defendant was completely innocent and shouldn't even have been charged?

Here, as far as I'm aware, we only have "guilty" and "not guilty". Whether or not innocent's a legal term I have no idea. Hang on, I'll ask my legally qualified spouse ... no it's not. Usually in NZ courts, if it becomes clear that the defendant couldn't have committed the crime the judge stops the trial and throws the case out. Since most judges appear to value their jobs, they clearly don't do this very often. Usually the trial proceeds to its bitter end, and either "guilty" or "not guilty" is handed down as a verdict. And "not guilty" can mean either "not proven" as in the Scottish system, or "innocent".

So the legalistic definition of "not guilty" is applied equally to those who really are innocent and those who have a better lawyer than the prosecutor but have committed the crime.

Seems to me, then, that the reporters are reasonably justified in using "not guilty" and "innocent" interchangeably if only because there will always be doubt about the exact, non-legal, meaning of "not guilty" when it's applied to a particular defendant in a particular case.

I have no knowledge of the law, but my lay understanding was that English law has two verdicts, guilty and not guilty. In Scottish law, a form of Roman law, there are three verdicts, guilty, not proven, and innocent. The Romans themselves said either ignoramus 'we do not know' or non liquet 'it is not clear' for the middle term -- I don't know which of those was the correct legal term.

I would have thought that the law of Australia, NZ, 49 US states, and 9 Canadian provinces was English common law: the exceptions being the Roman law of Quebec and Louisiana.

Repeating the disclaimer, this was my purely linguistic and unconfirmed udnerstanding of the difference.

'Wrongeous' is a misspelling by false analogy with 'righteous' and 'timeous', but the word 'wrongous' exists. It sounds to me like an old term of law, as 'timeous' itself is. Chambers's (the only reference I have to hand) gives the pronunciation as -ng- or -ngg-.

Thanks for that explanation. But doesn't it seem to support my case? Legally speaking, once a court has returned a verdict of 'not guilty', the defendant is innocent of the crime. The defendant may not have proven, or demonstrated it - that would be a misrepresentation of the facts - but certainly has the right to claim innocence, as evidenced by the criminal court. Or not?

Given which, I find the civil court system a bit bizarre. I can appreciate that the prepondernace of evidence can be taken into account for a civil case like, say, land rights. But how can damages from a criminal case be decided by a civil court without reference to the verdict of the criminal case. OJ Simpson may, for all I know, have committed murder. However the criminal justice system, for all its flaws, determined him not guilty. How, then, could a civil court find him guilty? Surely a claim for damages should only be allowed in the court if there is a criminal verdict of guilt. Anything else seems to me to be an unfair trial by media cum double jeopardy. But then, I've never understood the American penchant for litigation.

Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.